Krossies comment gave me the first laugh of the day... and I love that video. I don't think Sauwelios is coming back here, I pissed him off by calling him Talmudic because he didn't fall for my interpretation and let his analytical method loose on me.

Jakob wrote:Does anyone have experience with overcoming lion-like virtue, to become a self-propelling wheel of creative innocence? Or maybe there are examples, in literature, or other forms of drama, of someone who either suffers the same fate as this cruel hero?

I like to think that my Buddhist-like approach to life keeps my inner (Nietzschean) child alive and puts aside the angst of the lion. It's something about believing that nothing really matters that sets one free. The lion still believes things matter - his virtues matter.

This isn't to say that I'm a Buddhist nor that absolutely nothing matters to me - I think anyone who claims that really nothing matters to them is lying - but it is, as they say, the 'spirit' of the philosophy that guides me.

Jakob wrote:Does anyone have experience with overcoming lion-like virtue, to become a self-propelling wheel of creative innocence? Or maybe there are examples, in literature, or other forms of drama, of someone who either suffers the same fate as this cruel hero?

I like to think that my Buddhist-like approach to life keeps my inner (Nietzschean) child alive and puts aside the angst of the lion. It's something about believing that nothing really matters that sets one free. The lion still believes things matter - his virtues matter.

This isn't to say that I'm a Buddhist nor that absolutely nothing matters to me - I think anyone who claims that really nothing matters to them is lying - but it is, as they say, the 'spirit' of the philosophy that guides me.

Good call. Broadly speaking also the direction W. Locomotive was going into with the Saints.What's missing yet from my perspective is the "cruelty" which Nietzsche is so keen on. We non hardline-Aryans may need to refine that concept, as also "will to power".

What an excellent thread. I just wish I hadn't caught it so late in the game. I hardly feel qualified to respond after having read through it all, but your comment about the characteristic "cruelty" got me thinking...

Perhaps the cruelty lies in the passion and persistence behind the lion's virtue. That is to say, his pursuit of virtue [as virtuous as it may be] becomes his offense. The more obstinate he becomes, the less he is willing to tolerate the occasional exceptions in thought or action. In a sense he becomes more upright and stubborn [static], whereas his actions actually become more aggressive and unpredictable [dynamic]. Until eventually he becomes the aggressor in all situations, believing primarily in that which he reveres in himself while stepping on, or around, the rest. Thus, maybe his cruelty comes in the form of incidentally devaluing all of that which he is not, or does not represent. He regards himself and his virtue[s] as the 'ends' rather than a 'means', so to speak. And he destroys his relationships as a consequence, alienating and embittering himself until he looses all sight of the child in him.

I can't help but wonder: By this paradigm, did Socrates himself die a lion? Or a child taken for the lion he once was? Or was it the final metamorphosis from child back to camel?

[Note: I'm not sure how Nietzsche intended the model, obviously, but I don't take the progression to be necessarily linear. Perhaps it can be cyclical and repetitive throughout the course of a life.]

http://nietzschespirit.blogspot.com wrote:It is a mistake to think of this metaphor as a linear path, it, as other aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy such as the Eternal Return, can be conceived of cyclically. A creator finds he can bear ever more weight, fight an even greater fight, and find new "happy isles" for his soil to grow on. How far can this creator go? Well that depends on the soil that he grew on.

I guess I'm not alone in my conception of a non-, or possibly more-than-, linear progression.

The cool part is that the article gives credit to Sauwelios as a contributor.

statiktech wrote:What an excellent thread. I just wish I hadn't caught it so late in the game. I hardly feel qualified to respond after having read through it all, but your comment about the characteristic "cruelty" got me thinking...

Perhaps the cruelty lies in the passion and persistence behind the lion's virtue. That is to say, his pursuit of virtue [as virtuous as it may be] becomes his offense. The more obstinate he becomes, the less he is willing to tolerate the occasional exceptions in thought or action. In a sense he becomes more upright and stubborn [static], whereas his actions actually become more aggressive and unpredictable [dynamic]. Until eventually he becomes the aggressor in all situations, believing primarily in that which he reveres in himself while stepping on, or around, the rest. Thus, maybe his cruelty comes in the form of incidentally devaluing all of that which he is not, or does not represent. He regards himself and his virtue[s] as the 'ends' rather than a 'means', so to speak. And he destroys his relationships as a consequence, alienating and embittering himself until he looses all sight of the child in him.

That sounds plausible. But I also have this idea in my head, I don't know where it comes from, that Nietzsche designates the Child as being cruel as well. Innocence of becoming as being indifferent to the suffering it causes. I am now wondering if this is coming from Nietzscheans rather than Nietzsche, but I think not.

I can't help but wonder: By this paradigm, did Socrates himself die a lion? Or a child taken for the lion he once was? Or was it the final metamorphosis from child back to camel?

Or even from lion back to camel? As in bearing the burden of himself, of his own truth-mongering? I think he was a lion, but he had a lot of playfulness to him, a great sense of humor. Part of what I see when I think of him is that he just went around carelessly changing peoples minds - as literally as anyone ever does that. He was what he was, and he just let that happen to the people around him. Like a phenomenon unchained, very child-like. He had those qualities WL designated as saintly.

[Note: I'm not sure how Nietzsche intended the model, obviously, but I don't take the progression to be necessarily linear. Perhaps it can be cyclical and repetitive throughout the course of a life.]

http://nietzschespirit.blogspot.com wrote:It is a mistake to think of this metaphor as a linear path, it, as other aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy such as the Eternal Return, can be conceived of cyclically. A creator finds he can bear ever more weight, fight an even greater fight, and find new "happy isles" for his soil to grow on. How far can this creator go? Well that depends on the soil that he grew on.

I guess I'm not alone in my conception of a non-, or possibly more-than-, linear progression.

I had not thought of that.... but I suppose that someone who is a child also automatically becomes a "holy one', and very possibly even to himself, which makes him a camel. Yes, there is truth to this - periods in life full of inspiration and boundless courage to express that spirit, and then 'when the spirit wanes and the form has appeared,' who is there to reflect on this, to pick up on it, to take it forward? It must be the camel. But are we really talking about what Nietzsche was describing then? Does a spirit that has reached child-hood take himself up as a burden? Is this not a contradiction to the perspective on life that comes with child-ness?

statiktech wrote:What an excellent thread. I just wish I hadn't caught it so late in the game. I hardly feel qualified to respond after having read through it all, but your comment about the characteristic "cruelty" got me thinking...

Perhaps the cruelty lies in the passion and persistence behind the lion's virtue. That is to say, his pursuit of virtue [as virtuous as it may be] becomes his offense. The more obstinate he becomes, the less he is willing to tolerate the occasional exceptions in thought or action. In a sense he becomes more upright and stubborn [static], whereas his actions actually become more aggressive and unpredictable [dynamic]. Until eventually he becomes the aggressor in all situations, believing primarily in that which he reveres in himself while stepping on, or around, the rest. Thus, maybe his cruelty comes in the form of incidentally devaluing all of that which he is not, or does not represent. He regards himself and his virtue[s] as the 'ends' rather than a 'means', so to speak. And he destroys his relationships as a consequence, alienating and embittering himself until he looses all sight of the child in him.

That sounds plausible. But I also have this idea in my head, I don't know where it comes from, that Nietzsche designates the Child as being cruel as well. Innocence of becoming as being indifferent to the suffering it causes. I am now wondering if this is coming from Nietzscheans rather than Nietzsche, but I think not.

In a very real sense, true innocence involves preciselty this, innocence with regard to suffering/potential suffering you cause others. To be sensitive to others, to how they are affected by you, is a crucial part of growth intellectually and consciously speaking, but it also works against development of innocence. Now, once the consciousness grows to the point where it is able to more fully incorporate awareness of both of these aspects, a new sort of innocence can be born, a "philosophical innocence." This is why the innocence of "the child", in Nietzsche's sense, is an emergent innocence unlike the innocence of, say, the ignorant or naive, or actual children. Theirs is beautiful, yes, but precludes philosophic insight and understanding. The goal then of the philosopher traveling this path is to edify his philosophic understanding, his consciousness-conscience to such a point where he recreates the form of innocence within himself, emerging from the platform of his higher awareness... this innocence is a deliberate refusal to submit oneself to the "negative" influences of others, and this includes the negative impacts induced in others through their interactions with oneself. This is the "harshness" of the Nietzschean child. He must develop both acute awareness of others, including his impact on others, as well as the ability to psychologically "turn off" the negative affects of others, including those negative affect from others that he himself may have induced or "put there", accidentally or incidentally.

I can't help but wonder: By this paradigm, did Socrates himself die a lion? Or a child taken for the lion he once was? Or was it the final metamorphosis from child back to camel?

Or even from lion back to camel? As in bearing the burden of himself, of his own truth-mongering? I think he was a lion, but he had a lot of playfulness to him, a great sense of humor. Part of what I see when I think of him is that he just went around carelessly changing peoples minds - as literally as anyone ever does that. He was what he was, and he just let that happen to the people around him. Like a phenomenon unchained, very child-like. He had those qualities WL designated as saintly.

Yes, we can see part of the Nietzschean child in the figure of Socrates, in his "innocence" as regards his effects on others. Of course this innocence is only partially evolved, as Socrates justifies his effects on others as "for the greater good" of furthering knowledge and truth. In this way he artificially insulates himself from the full psychological effect of knowing with full understanding the very real possibility of just how detrimental his effect on the lives of others might actually be.

[Note: I'm not sure how Nietzsche intended the model, obviously, but I don't take the progression to be necessarily linear. Perhaps it can be cyclical and repetitive throughout the course of a life.]

http://nietzschespirit.blogspot.com wrote:It is a mistake to think of this metaphor as a linear path, it, as other aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy such as the Eternal Return, can be conceived of cyclically. A creator finds he can bear ever more weight, fight an even greater fight, and find new "happy isles" for his soil to grow on. How far can this creator go? Well that depends on the soil that he grew on.

I guess I'm not alone in my conception of a non-, or possibly more-than-, linear progression.

I had not thought of that.... but I suppose that someone who is a child also automatically becomes a "holy one', and very possibly even to himself, which makes him a camel. Yes, there is truth to this - periods in life full of inspiration and boundless courage to express that spirit, and then 'when the spirit wanes and the form has appeared,' who is there to reflect on this, to pick up on it, to take it forward? It must be the camel. But are we really talking about what Nietzsche was describing then? Does a spirit that has reached child-hood take himself up as a burden? Is this not a contradiction to the perspective on life that comes with child-ness?

It is a contradiction in so far as we conceive innocence at its end, its highest manner of expression. To an innocence in development, or an arrested or partially-won innocence, the "camel's" burden becomes even heavier...

It is a contradiction in so far as we conceive innocence at its end, its highest manner of expression. To an innocence in development, or an arrested or partially-won innocence, the "camel's" burden becomes even heavier...

That's along the same line of what I was thinking...

How long does anything remain innocent but by its own ignorance? I see the child as innocent and optimistic, but not perpetually ignorant of that which he is not. If this progression of the spirit can be considered an evolution, the child will inevitably recognize his burden lest he ceases to progress. And the burden will be all the more cumbersome because he is all the more responsible for it.

Yes, we can see part of the Nietzschean child in the figure of Socrates, in his "innocence" as regards his effects on others. Of course this innocence is only partially evolved, as Socrates justifies his effects on others as "for the greater good" of furthering knowledge and truth. In this way he artificially insulates himself from the full psychological effect of knowing with full understanding the very real possibility of just how detrimental his effect on the lives of others might actually be.

I don't conceive of Socrates as being ignorant of his effect, but, rather, vigilant in his belief that his effect was worth his cause, so to speak. Perhaps he was lion after all. But in his death, I see him bearing the burden of his own innocence and persistence as well as the burden which society cast upon him -- Socrates ...the camel?

The goal then of the philosopher traveling this path is to edify his philosophic understanding, his consciousness-conscience to such a point where he recreates the form of innocence within himself, emerging from the platform of his higher awareness... this innocence is a deliberate refusal to submit oneself to the "negative" influences of others, and this includes the negative impacts induced in others through their interactions with oneself. This is the "harshness" of the Nietzschean child. He must develop both acute awareness of others, including his impact on others, as well as the ability to psychologically "turn off" the negative affects of others, including those negative affect from others that he himself may have induced or "put there", accidentally or incidentally.

Now we're getting at the bottom of the threads question, I think.

If the above is an accurate description fo the innocence which the child has won, conquered, and I believe that it is, then this explains the virtue of the lion that has to be overcome indeed as something like "the will to objective truth". In terms of power as well as truth, the Lion wants to be respected as a power by everyone. "my will is law!" He suffers if this is not the case, if others "don't see the light". For example, the compulsion of the warrior-priest, where the camel would be the devoted priest. The Child, on the other hand, in this "man of God"-analogy occupying the position of the saint, is only concerned, in that he has banished from his mind all other concerns, with what he believes. This is a much more delicate and expansive question, since personal belief is a much more sensitive field, accessible to investigation and constant criticism and verification, than the belief of others, and than the dominion of ones will over others. "The" truth is a very crude, and violent thing compared to a subjective but comprehensive world view, a philosophy in the most noble sense. The former can only be imposed by force, by demonstration of power, the latter, when and if it effects others, is not actively imposed on them, but inspires a spark of self-consciousness in them.

By these standards, I think that Socrates was a lion - constantly fighting to convince - disguised as a child. He pretends in his inquisitions to be innocent and playfully inquiring while causing his "victim" to think properly, but he is actually marching head on to the prize of conquering the others mind, for which he cares much more than a child would. And he leaves the other more often than not distressed, robbed of a feeling of self-worth, instead of enriched. I think that the cruelty done by the Child is much more haphazard, collateral, contingent - and what is done as damage by the child may in the turn of a moment be seen as constructive change. The childs most deliberate (yet still contingent) violence is perpetrated on his own (social, moral) conscience, while accepting the possibility of socio-ethical disasters that may have killed the proud lion.

Compassion indwelling innocence will lack in function, role. Look at it carefully enough and you will realize with some horror that it is not even virtuous, fraternal, or good-spirited. That rare form of compassion is called pure because it is, in practice, entirely side-effect, automatic consequence, after-taste... and not at all the goal for which one worked.

One is that way (one does not act it), and can be no other, even for the sake of obvious profit, praise and advantage.For the world, it is insanity: collapse enraptured and sobbing around the shivering neck of a horse lawfully whipped by its master.

I skipped through most of the thread to give you my first answer to your questions.

The lion is virtuos, and severe in his virtues.

The child is careless and has no true virtues. I have seen people like this, they live life beyond the lion, beyond virtue and rules, which makes them purely innocent and unspeakably cruel at the same time. Rules are imposed from the outside and are easy to overcome, but virtue comes from inside and one has already attached pride and other forms of spiritual weight to it. It is harder to overcome, especially for the fearful.

But the child cannot have virtue because it is severe and generilizing. Eventually, seeing the cruelty of the child, a severe enough lion will eat him. And after that, the lion is bound to turn the virtue on himself and eat himself.

Anyway, I haven't read TSZ, but this is the impression I get from my understanding of the other works of his that I have read.

All wills are the same, its their expression that’s different e.g. if a mass of people subvert their own wills or are otherwise subdued by another, then that will has a more powerful ‘effect’, but only due to such circumstance. Effectively that will is using the mass of wills to gain greater effect, hence it’s a multiples of 1’s and all 1’s are initially the same.

You take an effect and multiply it then you have a mass effect, it is not so that people like Hitler have massive power, its more that the untermensch give their power to him through their weakness. You cannot be the ubermensch unless you first raise yourself out of self-subversion or free yourself from tyranny.

Ultimately I think this is what Nietzsche meant rather than what the Nazis took his works to mean. they are after all the lion and the child kills the lion [in that it devours itself]. So like the fool in the tarot, it [as the child] goes through the entire sequence and arrives finally out of the cave and out of the major arcane cycle.

The truth is naked,Once it is written it is lost.Genius is the result of the entire product of man.The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas

( "The will to power flows forth naturally from the Child as a contingency to its being, whereas the Lion is solely occupied with this will in order to attain his being -- which [as long as he remains a Lion] he never does. " )

"Inhuman was this hero, and wild - -See, I teach you the love for the superman.- - He took it on him and broke under the load."

Is there a causal link between the hero being cruel/inhuman, and his failure to carry the love for the Superman? It's possible I simply dont see the meaning.

A principled love for the superman, love carried as a virtue, can mean that the lover can not overcome his own nature. If his highest virtue is the love for that which is beyond him, then he would have to overcome his highest virtue to overcome himself. Thus his will to overcome himself is crushed by his highest virtue.

Since the superman must have the qualities of the child, we may assume that the two are in ways alike. If the Lion holds the superman as an Ideal to be upheld, instead of a goal to be attained, his progress is blocked. (The only solution now is to interpret the Ideal as himself.)

All weathers are wild, you know what this means? Wolf age, wind age, ~ ᚨOur polity does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others. ~ Thucydidesᛉᛋᛞ

There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

"And he did not manage to overcome / conquer his virtue.The lion in him tore up the child in him, and finally the lion devoured himself."

A fascinating observation of one of the ways in which the chain of metamorphoses can be broken. I've been pondering this since I read it, and haven't fully grasped in a rational manner in which ways the lions virtue needs to be overcome to become a child.

Now you know.

All weathers are wild, you know what this means? Wolf age, wind age, ~ ᚨOur polity does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others. ~ Thucydidesᛉᛋᛞ

There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides